Friday, September 24, 2010

Last night the President of Iran, one Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. During the speech, he referred to some of the issues surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001. His comments were so inflammatory that the delegations from the United States, Australia and several other European countries left their seats and walked out as he spoke. Canada's United Nations delegation didn't even bother to show up.

Here are some quotes:

"...We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein...."

"...First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11...."

"...From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives...."

"...The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11...."

Oops, please excuse the error. I seem to have posted quotes from the wrong source. The preceding statements were from a column written by Michael Meacher in the Guardian back in September 2003 that you can find here. In case you weren't aware of Mr. Meacher, he was the United Kingdom's Environment Minister from 1997 to 2003 during part of Prime Minister Tony Blair's reign until he was "relieved of his duties" in June 2003. He did declare his intention to run for the leadership of the Labour Party in 2007, however, he stood aside 2 months later. It's important to remember that Mr. Meacher was part of the government that was the first to sign on to George W's "Coalition of the Willing".

In case you were wondering what President Ahmadinejad really did say, you can find the Iran government-approved text of his speech here.

A couple of actual quotes from the President's speech in closing and this time I promise that they really are his:

"...It was said that some three thousands people were killed on the II September for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding. In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents...."

It almost sounds like President Ahmadinejad and Mr. Meacher were reading from the same script, doesn't it?

These are the same games played by the British on us when we wanted to be independent. This is old story, but people do not know. Here is totally different info (nothing to do with Iran), when you read this, you can relate how wars are created by the bankers to put the public into debt:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/

Put your hands on your hearts and think for yourselves, why a bank that is bankrupt gets bailed out, but an ordinary business does not deserve the same sympathy? You will immediately say "It was too big to fail". Well, I am not suggesting banks to be wiped out. I am not suggesting employees to be laid off. I am suggesting that if public bails out a bank, we should take ownership. Stock holders should be wiped out and the bank can continue to operate with tax payer being the owner. This would be fairer, rather than literally giving away the tax payer money. And don't tell me they paid back TARP. TARP is small portion of bailout. It is the visible to portion so that they can claim they paid it back. Real bailouts are low interest rates, accounting changes, fannie, freddie loosing tax payer money so that banks can sell their homes at inflated prices. Not only that, it is absurd for banks to ceate money out of thin air and then demand interest and when the home owner cannot pay, they take the home. Folks, this is not fair at all. And what part of it do we not understand: Expensive homes are not good for us. Life will be better when homes are cheaper compared to your salary. Paying mortgage for 30 years is not a good life.

Here is how banks create money out of thin air and demand interest for it, which you pay with hard earned dollars:

http://www.tradingstocks.net/html/banks_create_money.html

I am telling you, you are being taken advantage of.

Imagine what would happen if these Iranians gain strength and have voice in the world stage and push their agenda for interest free monetary system? Do you see where this is coming from? What would that do to the bankers that you just bailed out with trillions and trillions of debt?? Big money is at stake. Very big money. And it is not your money.

u and poppavox think alike....somewhat...but you have not yet posted a viable alternative to solving any major problem you have covered in your Blog. sorta makes yer blog readable but your title of viable opposition moot. just sayin.

Actually, I adopted the Viable Opposition name when my blog first started because I was looking for a viable opposition political party in my home province. We are a two party democracy and neither party is much different from each other and I was hoping that a third party alternative would appear on the scene.

As for solving problems, how do you solve problems like give-away houses in Detroit, China's increasing oil demands, mounting government debt and pollution from the tar sands?

Very amusing, Glen. I find it funny or odd how we seem to have such short-term memories about what we ourselves do. "Those" people are bad; we are good but we may be doing exactly the same thing. Go figure. - Keep writing. I enjoy your investigative views of our world.

Subscribe To

About Me

I have been an avid follower of the world's political and economic scene since the great gold rush of 1979 - 1980 when it seemed that the world's economic system was on the verge of collapse. I am most concerned about the mounting level of government debt and the lack of political will to solve the problem. Actions need to be taken sooner rather than later when demographic issues will make solutions far more difficult. As a geoscientist, I am also concerned about the world's energy future; as we reach peak cheap oil, we need to find viable long-term solutions to what will ultimately become a supply-demand imbalance.